To say that the Supremacy Clause does not confer a right of action is not to diminish the significant role that courts play in assuring the supremacy of federal law. For once a case or controversy properly comes before a court, judges are bound by federal law....The dissenting opinion is by Justice Sotomayor, who is joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Kagan. The statute the 2 sides are interpreting is the Medicaid Act.
The dissent agrees with us that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied right of action, and that Congress may displace the equitable relief that is traditionally available to enforce federal law. It disagrees only with our conclusion that such displacement has occurred here.
ADDED: In the comments, Smilin' Jack says: "WTF? Have they run out of those Easter-Bunny-Display-in-National-Park cases? At least those were funny."
Yes, let's get back to talking about cake. The important thing in America right now is cake. Why are we all hepped up to talk about RFRA (which had previously bored the bejeezus out of everyone)? Cake.
Posts
16 comments:
The dissent agrees with us that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied right of action, and that Congress may displace the equitable relief that is traditionally available to enforce federal law. It disagrees only with our conclusion that such displacement has occurred here.
WTF? Have they run out of those Easter-Bunny-Display-in-National-Park cases? At least those were funny.
Ha ha.
Yeah.
I knew people would find this boring.
Hey, let's get back to talking about cake. Cake is the issue of the day.
You know the reasoning is correct because the liberals are on the other side.
"You know the reasoning is correct because the liberals are on the other side."
That's how the Law & Politics polisci profs spare themselves the trouble of ever having to read the cases. Them and most of America.
"That's how the Law & Politics polisci profs spare themselves the trouble of ever having to read the cases. Them and most of America."
Yes, lots of ignorant commentary about the Court stems from partisan bloc voting. In this case, however, Kennedy joined the liberal dissenters and Breyer authored a concurring opinion. Shouldn't that inspire some curiosity about the case?
Breyer, as usual, makes some interesting points about federal courts staying out of rate-making cases for the last 100 years.
Angels on a pin head.
The real problem is the fact that the Court ignores the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Cue Alexander Hamilton and James Madison telling us that OF COURSE state power is implicit in the Constitution. No need to spell it out. Just respect the powers given explicitly the National government and the States have the right to do everything else... And ignore that Necessary and Proper man behind the curtain.
That's how the Law & Politics polisci profs spare themselves the trouble of ever having to read the cases. Them and most of America.
I certainly didn't read it.
Arguments from principles would be nice, but then there's always case law, isn't there.
I rather liked the decision. Not every case is Dred Scott or Roe v Wade and will light up the message boards because it touches on profound social issues. But over time this opinion will be well known in constitutional circles. I would commend its reading to those here who are not attorneys but are interested in how the process works.
The law is not rocket science and most reasonably bright people can grasp it if they are willing to learn a few new concepts and the legal nomenclature that goes with them.
This decision, majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions (plus the clerk's syllabus) total 30 pages -- a modest burden for study. Scalia's majority opinion is clear and "hornbookish" as is typical when he writes for the majority (and not in the dissent when his tone is more feisty and polemical). Breyer's concurrence clearly shows why he agrees with the judgment and points out what he thinks are additional valid grounds for reversal. The dissenting opinion is likewise well written in stating its case for affirmance.
The justices are not throwing verbal shoes at each other. It is a well reasoned disagreement, and exemplifies about 95% of what they typically do.
As for the case itself - its practical import is to leave challenges or complaints to administration of this and potentially other Spending Clause programs in the political and not judicial realm -- unless Congress expressly provides a private right of action.
"Angels on a pin head."
No. These cases, defining (and limiting) the power of the federal judiciary, are all about the constitutional structure of government -- preserving all that checks and balances stuff, with three co-equal and independent branches staying out of each other's way, none aggrandizing itself at the expense of the others. Many people here were all for that in the O-care cases. This is more of the same, and it was quite fitting that Scalia reached back to Marbury v. Madison in making his argument. And all nine of them agreed on first principles. The only dispute was whether Congress had impliedly authorized a private right of action in this context. Sorry it's not entertaining, but that's life.
This is a statutory interpretation case, not a constitutional interpretation case.
How is it that the liberals are on one side and the conservatives on the other.
With such a split happening regularly, how is it interpretation.
Unless it's like interpretation of a poem.
Then lit. crit. is the field, not law.
Dad is great. Give us the chocolate cake!
If the ninth or the tenth amendment was properly applied, there would be nothing to talk about and we could all go about our business.
But instead we have a tick that has inserted itself into the east coast of our nation. It spends it's time inserting itself into issues where it doesn't belong and sucking the life out of the rest of the country.
The only reason this is an issue is because the federal government takes my money and gives it to other people to buy medical care from other people and tries to tell everyone how much medical care should cost.
The cake is a lie.
Post a Comment